And The Nominee Is…

who?

Gotta love cronyism.

This is actually a pretty stealth move on behalf of the Bush administration. It puts Democrats in a tight spot. They’re faced with a nominee who they know nothing about (other than her and GWB are good pals), and so they have two not-so-great choices: let her go through and take their chances in getting a total nut, or fillibuster with the knowledge that doing so will virtually guarantee that the subsequent nominee will be confirmed (the American public isn’t gonna love multiple fillibusters) — giving Bush the ability to then put up a Miguel Estrada or a Patricia Owens and leave Dems with few options. Her lack of any sort of judicial history also gives Democrats fewer rallying points — all we know is that even some Republicans are under the impression that “She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush” and “that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met” (link via Atrios). George W. Bush is the most brilliant man she’s ever met? Sounds to me like she needs to get out more.

This one is trouble. Democrats are in a nasty position. We’ll have see what comes forward about her in the coming weeks.

UPDATE: Check out her blog. Totally legit, I swear.

UPDATE 2: This has nothing to do with anything, but I love my mom. I told her that I have school off tomorrow for Rosh Hashanah, and she IMs me, “oh…you ned to ask for forgiveness to anyone you have crossed! What do you think of Bush’s candidate?? I think she is absolutely unqualified! It is insulting to women…he is just offering up a woman…any woman…there are tons of qualified women! Its like he’s daring the Dems to say something. Well..the gym is beckoning. go make your dinner. gotta clear the phone line…George may be trying to reach me to be the next Secretary of State!” Hahaha…


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

20 comments for “And The Nominee Is…

  1. Thomas
    October 3, 2005 at 10:49 am

    Actually, he fucked up. She could lose as unqualified. She’s never done anything, on the bench, academia, politics or private practice that would lead one to believe she has the chops for this job.

  2. October 3, 2005 at 10:56 am

    I agree. But if she loses, his next nominee will almost definitely be confirmed. And that’s a problem.

  3. Allah
    October 3, 2005 at 11:10 am

    fillibuster with the knowledge that doing so will virtually guarantee that the subsequent nominee will be confirmed (the American public isn’t gonna love multiple fillibusters)

    You might not need to filibuster. If the outcry from conservatives is loud enough, a few Republican senators might be persuaded to join the Dems and reject her outright. I wouldn’t mind that at all, frankly.

    Your conclusion is also wrong as a matter of historical record. In 1969, the Senate rejected two of Nixon’s nominees to fill Abe Fortas’s seat on the Court. Harry Blackmun finally got in on the third try. Also bear in mind that O’Connor has said she’ll serve until her replacement is confirmed, which means there’s no pressure on Dems to approve someone just to fill a vacancy.

  4. Linnaeus
    October 3, 2005 at 11:41 am

    I don’t know how this will play out, but I do agree that this is a rope-a-dope attempt by the Bush administration.

  5. Dan
    October 3, 2005 at 11:45 am

    Check this out y’all. http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/

    Read it and weep.

  6. October 3, 2005 at 12:00 pm

    To Democratic politicians: Play the Crony Card for heaven’s sake!

  7. Thomas
    October 3, 2005 at 12:24 pm

    Jill, historically, you’re wrong. When Bork went down, his replacement went down, too. And Hainsworth and Carswell were both bounced before they got to Blackmun. The momentum works the other way: If moron fails, and the replacement is a winger with a paper trail, the dems are emboldened and the midterm is close, and the winger gets shot down, and Bush puts a consensus moderate in third to get the issue resolved before it’s a campaign issue.

  8. Pingback: Liberal Serving
  9. October 3, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    Oy va voy.

  10. zuzu
    October 3, 2005 at 2:10 pm

    Jill, historically, you’re wrong. When Bork went down, his replacement went down, too.

    Ginsburg had a marijuana issue and withdrew his name because of that. Then we got Anthony Kennedy.

  11. Thomas
    October 3, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    Zuzu, I remember Ginsburg well — and the Bloom County with Douglas Ginsburg and Tipper Gore getting stoned on the roof.

    We did okay on number three, both times: Roe, Evans v. Roemer and Lawrence all authored by a justice nominated after two consecutive failures. Kennedy’s not the justice I’d pick, but I’d walk any W nominee to get to him. Blackmun, even better. He was Nixon’s Souter.

  12. October 3, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    The far right is apoplectic about this. That can only be a good sign.

  13. October 3, 2005 at 4:11 pm

    To clarify, I wasn’t trying to argue that when a nominee goes down, their replacement automatically gets in. I fully realize that’s not the case. I’m not basing these predictions on anything other than gut feeling — and they are only baseless predictions, after all. My feeling right now is that Dems are weenies and they’ll bow to political pressure to end a fillibuster on any semi-qualified wingnut nominee.

    Like Allah said, there’s a good chance a fillibuster won’t be necessary, as Miers’ lack of a paper trail will likely make some Republicans nervous as well.

    Anyway, just tossing out predictions. There’s a solid chance that I’ll be totally and completely wrong.

  14. October 3, 2005 at 4:22 pm

    The woman gave $1000 to Al Gore when he was running for the nomination…. to run against Bush’s father. I don’t have a clue what that means, but it’s nothing short of damned fishy.

    And as for Bush being “brilliant”, I think there’s a difference between book-learnin’ and being conniving and able to get your way. Bush may come off as anal-clinchingly stupid — but he’s President of the United States. And to get there, he, somewhere, had to acquire the skillz to pay the billz. Someone who can act like a total buffoon and get elected prez (twice, mind you) fits some definitions of “brilliance”.

  15. Marksman2000
    October 3, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    You guys are in for a BIG surprise.

  16. October 3, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    Does it involve chocolate?

    I love chocolate.

  17. October 3, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    I agree that if the D’s fillibuster, that it will give the R’s serious political ammunition and the D’s are stuck with the next nominee – and it will be a hard core conservative jurist. As it is, I don’t think they’ll fillibuster.

  18. Tapetum
    October 3, 2005 at 9:21 pm

    That blog is something else. I mean – it reads like it was written by a 15-year-old. Prexy? Twitting people via blog? This does not seem like judicial reserve to me.

  19. October 3, 2005 at 9:37 pm

    I vote the blog is a joke.

  20. October 3, 2005 at 10:24 pm

    Guys. Of course the blog is a joke. It’s hilarious!

Comments are closed.